Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Buckeye Steamship Company v. Joseph McDonough Adm'r, Etc.

200 F.2d 558

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1952-12-19
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This cause has been heard and considered on the findings of fact, the conclusions of law and the opinion of the District Judge, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 473, on the entire record in the cause and the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys for the parties; From all of which it appears that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, but indeed are virtually unchallenged, and that the conclusions of law are correctly drawn for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court; And, upon the basis of the authorities cited in the opinion of the District Judge. See especially Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L.Ed. 916; O’Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36, 63 S.Ct. 488, 87 L.Ed. 596; Tiller v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Buckeye Steamship Company v. Joseph McDonough Adm'r, Etc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
7 opinions
BUCKEYE STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. McDONOUGH,200 F.2d 558(6th Cir. 1952)
BUCKEYE STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joseph McDONOUGH, Adm'r, etc.,
Appellee.
No. 11549.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
December 19, 1952.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; Emerich B. Freed, Judge.
McCreary, Hinslea Ray, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Harrison, Spangenberg Hull, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This cause has been heard and considered on the findings of fact, the conclusions of law and the opinion of the District Judge, D.C.,103 F. Supp. 473, on the entire record in the cause and the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys for the parties;

From all of which it appears that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, but indeed are virtually unchallenged, and that the conclusions of law are correctly drawn for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court;

And, upon the basis of the authorities cited in the opinion of the District Judge. See especially Lavender v. Kurn,327 U.S. 645,653,66 S.Ct. 740,90 L.Ed. 916; O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co.,318 U.S. 36,63 S.Ct. 488,87 L.Ed. 596; Tiller v. Atlantic Coastline R. Co.,318 U.S. 54,67,63 S.Ct. 444,87 L.Ed. 610; Marceau v. Great Lakes Transit Corp., 2 Cir.,146 F.2d 416,418; Wong Bar v. Suburban Pet. Transport, Inc., 2 Cir.,119 F.2d 745.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.